Allahabad High Court
The Union Of India And Others vs Budhesh Mani Mishra And Others on 31 October, 2017
Bench: Bharati Sapru, Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Reserved on 26.10.2017
Delivered on 31.10.2017
Court No. - 35
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 34077 of 2007
Petitioner :- The Union Of India And Others
Respondent :- Budhesh Mani Mishra And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Saral Srivastava,S.K. Anwar
Counsel for Respondent :- S.C.,Arvind Kumar Singh Ii,G.D.Mukherjee,S.K.Anwar,S.N.Anwar,S.V.Anwar,Satyajit Mukherjee
Hon'ble Bharati Sapru,J.
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Siddharth, J.)
Heard Sri S.K. Anwar, leanred counsel for the petitioners and Sri Arvind Kumar Singh-II, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.
The above noted writ petition has been filed by the petitioners praying for quashing of impugned order dated 04.4.2007 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad in Original Application No. 986 of 2004 (Budhesh Mani Mishra Vs. Union of India and others).
By the aforesaid order, the Tribunal has disposed of the original application filed by the respondent No.1 directing the petitioners to ensure that the case of the respondent No.1 for engagement/regularization in group "D" is considered on his turn, as per serial number in relevant register, within a reasonable time and, if required, after relaxing the upper age limit.
The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.1 had worked from 10.3.1974 to 15.12.1974 for a total period of 264 days as casual labourer in the North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur and thereafter he was disengaged. He was not re-engaged and therefore the respondent No.1, alongwith other casual labourers, filed an Original Application No. 73 of 1992 before the Central Administrative Triubnal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad, which was disposed of vide order dated 15.10.1992, directing the petitioners to open a Live Casual Labourer Register and absorb the Ex. Casual Labourers according to their seniority. The Live Casual Labourer Register was opened by the petitioners and on 07.6.1996, the respondent No.1 was informed that he would be absorbed according to his seniority as and when the vacancy arises. However, the employer did not absorbed the respondent No.1 and engaged junior persons and, therefore, he approached the Tribunal again by way of another Original Application No. 986 of 2004, which was disposed of vide order dated 04.4.2007, impugned in the present writ petition by the petitioners.
By the aforesaid order, the petitioners were directed by the Tribunal to ensure that the engagement/ regularization of the respondent No.1 is considered on his turn as per the serial number in the Railway Register and, if required, after relaxing upper age limit. The petitioners have assailed above order of the Tribunal on the ground that the maximum age for absorption of a casual labourer is 40 years and no relaxation is permissible. The Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction in directing that the respondent No.1 should be considered for regularization/absorption in service by granting relaxation in age limit.
Petitioners have brought on record the order dated 3.8.2006 passed by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21799 of 2006, as Annexure No. 11 to the writ petition, wherein this Court has held that the maximum age for consideration of a labourer for re-employment and regularization in the scheme is 40 years and it can be relaxed by few years in case of SC/ST and OBC category candidates. Therefore, where casual labourer was above the age of consideration, no relief was granted to him and the order of the Tribunal was set aside.
In the present case, when the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal was passed, the petitioner was aged about 52 years (in 2007). Now the petitioner is aged about 62 years and has reached the age of superannuation.
We have gone through the record of the case and it is apparent that after filing of the writ petition in July, 2007, the interim order dated 27.7.2007 was passed staying the effect and operation of the order dated 04.4.2007 passed by the Tribunal. Notices were issued to the respondent No.1 who filed his counter affidavit dated 30th April, 2012. Thereafter, no efforts have been made by the respondent No.1 for getting the matter decided early.
Therefore, in view of facts and circumstances of the case, no useful purpose would be served in examining the correctness of the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal and it will remain an academic exercise only.
There is no real and living issue involved in the writ petition now and, therefore, determination of the lis between the parties would be a futile exercise. This Hon'ble Court in the case of "Balbhadra Pandey Vs. General Manager, 2005(3) ESC 1626" has held that It is settled proposition of law that even if the order impugned is quashed or a rule is struck down and no relief is granted to the affected party, it would be a futile exercise.
In view of the above factual and legal position, the writ petition cannot be entertained and is hereby dismissed, but without any order as to costs.
Order Date :- 31.10.2017
Ruchi Agrahari
